The Libs are always grabbing

The Libs are always grabbing money when they know some of the donations are not allowed. Sleazy bunch

Ahhh What?

The board that runs TRIUMF giving the Soclibs $1950?

Clearly they have too much money.

The board of the Vancouver Art gallery didn't used to let artists to serve on it's board for years.

Has that changed yet?

The VAG giving the Soclibs money for re-election boggles the mind.

Just how bad are things on that board that they're making decisions like that?

The difference between the art scene in Vancouver and the one in Seattle is like the difference between night and day.

Any info on the context of the donations?

There's been a similar scandal unfolding in Alberta, where provincial parties (mostly the PC) received donations from universities, municipalites and other public agencies.

In that case, most of the donations came in the form of tickets to fundraising dinners or golf tournaments or the like.

Although it still doesn't justify giving public or charitable funds to a political party, it does help explain the mindset of the people who made the donation -- i.e., it was about gaining access to decision-makers in a social setting, using budgets set aside for public relations or government liason. That is more understandable than someone on the board or executive of a charitable organization just writing a cheque to a campaign.

Blogoshpere contributes again

Readers of my blog Northern Insights will be aware the issue of TRIUMF contributing to the BC Liberals was first raised April 12, 2012.

http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/2012/04/scrub-scrub-scrub.html

It would be a lot simpler if

It would be a lot simpler if we had a law that no company/union/organization can donate anything (time, money, equipment)to any political party. Any donation shall be only from individual Canadian citizens and in Provincal matters, has to be a Provincal registered voter. No person can donate on behalf of any other person/company/union/organization and all donations are not tax deductable. I wonder if any political party would have the balls to take such a stand?

Van Isle

Sounds good to me.

recognition

If only the general public would realize that the contributions from both corporate and unions is not equal. In fact it isn't even close, it is just a convenient and ignorant argument to fall back onto time and again. A perfect example is the very recent recall race over Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
The right wing Walker spent a total of 45million. This influx of donations from inside and mostly outside sources speaks volumns on the amount of cash available. However, the democratic opponent, Tom Barrett spent a meagre 9million. This equality has shown itself in recent elections however the MSM always fails to mention this inequality. Unions are not this all powerful, evil machine. They are representative of working people, another group with less and less power these days.
So if you are one that wants to ban donations of corporate and union donations to parties because you 'hate' unions, I say, please do if it means cutting off the corporate bullies.

Ditto

Agree with VanIsle and Snert. Lets get on with election reform including scraping the first past the post system. Enough BC residents want this. If the NDP get in will they reform the way we elect our MLA's or will Bill Tieleman tell them not to?

Lets have fun! Fill in the blanks!

"---------- Leader --- ------- isn’t revealing how much the --- was forced to pay back to major Canadian ------ after Elections Canada found the party violated political financing laws"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-refuses-to-reveal-cost-of-ndp-convention-finance-violation/article4237080/

So...how did everyone do?

agreement

i agree that only registered voters should be allowed to make any sort of donation, never in the person's name by a company or corporation and certainly never by a non for profit group with donated funds unless it is specified during collection that the funds will be used for political purposes, that should be clearly marked on your tax deduction slip!
i would also like to see people take their voting responsibilities seriously. we have thousands of people living in this country, not participating in the democratic voting portion or the process but receiving social benefits that are decided upon by the leadership group. by having the voter apathy that we have we also have a government that feels that it can act with impunity and freely flout the boundaries of the law while @$$raping the taxpayer with frivolous spending and outright embezzlement...this is not how politics were described to me in our stellar (note sarcasm) education system! frankly, you don't have a stamped receipt from the polling station that you submit with your income taxes then you are not eligible for the year's worth of monetary social benefits (ei, child tax credit...which i don't get, i work hard, pay more in taxes than the average joe yet i am shafted in equal payments, the welfare moms make out like lazy bandits...any form of welfare payments. just an easy solution to voter apathy...take away their 'right' until they perform their responsibility first!

happy!

did your test...i found them all to be in contempt! i think we should bring back public hangings and we should start with the politicians and ceo's of the ppp's (you know the ones that deferred bad debt and gave themselves millions in bonuses while raising rates fairly paid for by the consumers...us!)
it was a good laugh, thanx a bunch! a bit of humour is good for the soul!

Since happy wouldn't post stuff that's negative about Harper

"The MP leading the Conservative government’s defence in the robocalls scandal is himself under investigation by Elections Canada for alleged election-law violations related to voter-contact calls made by his campaign in 2008."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/06/tory-robocall-defence-mp-himself-under-investigation-by-elections-canada/

and from his own link

"In March, the CPC paid back Elections Canada $230,198 and dropped an appeal at the Supreme Court. The case involved the funnelling of national funds to local ridings that in turn paid for national advertising in the 2006 election – a practice that caused the party to exceed its legal spending limits.

The party also settled last November for another $52,000 over a separate set of regulatory charges related to the so-called “in and out” scheme.

The electoral watchdog has also been probing allegations of voter suppression during the last general election. The Conservatives have acknowledged some irregularities in one Ontario riding, but there is no evidence directly linking the party to misleading “robo-calls.”"

Frank?

So if I never post stuff thats negative about Harper then how do you explain that you just reprinted some negative information from MY link that I provided for all to read?
That pretty much blows a hole in your allegation doesn't it.

And I have stated here before at least twice that Harpers religious beliefs are ignorant but as long as I don't see any flagrant displays I can live with that. Such as shutting down the abortion discussion immediately. I imagine you were disappointed?
Tommy Douglas also had religious beliefs. Homosexuality was a curable disease according to Tommy. Pretty ignorant huh.

So anyhow now that we all agree that all the major political parties play fast and loose with the rules when are the NDP going to tell us how much money was involved with their indiscretions? Why is it a secret? What is Mulcair hiding?

Goes both ways Frank as much as you'd like to believe it only goes one way.

happy

happy : "That pretty much blows a hole in your allegation doesn't it."

Nope, it doesn't.

And you're comparing the stealing of a chocolate bar with murder.

What happened with the NDP was with their own leadership convention. What happened with the Conservatives was in regards to a federal election. And the Conservatives denied it right up to the pioint they pleded guilty.

The saintly NDP

"The NDP had taken in donations to commemorate Layton’s death to be passed on to the new Broadbent Institute think tank. It also promised to issue tax receipts. Ultimately, it had to return money to donors and set up an another system for contributions to be routed to the institute."

Using Laytons death to solicit cash. Shameless.

"In March, the party paid back Elections Canada $230,198 and dropped an appeal at the Supreme Court. The case involved the funnelling of national funds to local ridings that in turn paid for national advertising in the 2006 election – a practice that caused the party to exceed its legal spending limits"

In 2006 yet. Then dropped the appeal. Kind of like admitting guilt, no?

"The party also settled last November for another $52,000 over a separate set of regulatory charges related to the so-called “in and out” scheme."

Ah yes, the old in and out scheme. The NDP has watched and learned how to play the "game" as well as any party. I guess Topp gets the credit for that?

Hmmm. Maybe the NDP IS ready to play with the big boys eh Frank. Certainly have learned all the dirty tricks, ah I meant "chocolate bars"

With other parties its murder

happy

Shameless? Oh please, you should bottle that hypocritical manufactured outrage. Nothing wrong with accepting donations from people wanting to donate to continue Layton's work.

"In 2006 yet. Then dropped the appeal. Kind of like admitting guilt, no?"

After the Cons fought it through the courts.

"Ah yes, the old in and out scheme. The NDP has watched and learned how to play the "game" as well as any party. I guess Topp gets the credit for that?"

LOL! Comprehend much? You misunderstood the article, the "party" the article is referring to is your onservatives.

Full quote :

"The Conservatives have also come under the Elections Canada microscope.

In March, the party paid back Elections Canada $230,198 and dropped an appeal at the Supreme Court. The case involved the funnelling of national funds to local ridings that in turn paid for national advertising in the 2006 election – a practice that caused the party to exceed its legal spending limits.

The party also settled last November for another $52,000 over a separate set of regulatory charges related to the so-called “in and out” scheme.

The electoral watchdog has also been probing allegations of voter suppression during the last general election. The Conservatives have acknowledged some irregularities in one Ontario riding, but there is no evidence directly linking the party to misleading “robo-calls.”"

hahahahahaha

Hardly outrage

Just stating the facts. And if there was nothing wrong with it then why did the party have to return the "donations"?

Yes I jumped ahead and made an error after reading this

"This is the second time in a year the NDP have run afoul of the Canada Elections Act"

and went to the bottom of the article without reading in better detail. I was wrong.
When you made the EXACT same type of mistake on the YVR thread, after I pointed it out to you you claimed you were sick and I graciously accepted that at face value. Remember? I can go back and retrieve it if you have a different version of it. Shall I?
Speaks volumes to see how you return the favour. By laughing.

We've thrashed this one to death I guess. You may finish me off now while I crawl back under my rock.

Cheers!

happy

"And if there was nothing wrong with it then why did the party have to return the "donations"?"

The wrongness of it was in the method, not because donations are illegal or because there's a law about accepting donations in the name of a dead leader. If donations were illegal the Cons have a lot of explaining to do (well, they do anyway).

But if you want to play the outrage card, I can do that too. What do you think of gun websites having links to donate to the Conservative party? I saw that in the Globe a few months back. Talk about yer shameless.

Ever wonder how the parents of Vic Toews' (who was married at the time) teenage babysitter felt when they found out he had been having sex with her? And yet he calls people that don't like his bill, child molestors? Talk about yer shameless.

As for your mistake, it was honest and easy to make when you're trying to quickly make a point. However, because you were waving your fist in the air and acting all holier-than-thou (remember you posted on this topic before I did) I found it more than a little amusing. I am allowed to laugh you know.

And yes, I know that you don't hold the Cons to the same standard you would have the rest of us hold the NDP so you'll note I didn't demand you turn your guns on them.

As I've said before, I'm biased. I'm an unabashed NDP supporter. But you are always trying to claim you're fair and balanced and all that. My point is only that you're as biased and one-sided as I am.

Oh please. Such drama

Waving my fist in the air and acting holier than thou. How bout foaming at the mouth while your at it....

I'll make this simple cause it is. I do hold all parties and politicians to the same standard.
They all suck.
So what it boils down to is which one will do the LEAST damage to moi when in power and from past experience that is definitely not the NDP. The NDP has nothing to offer me, I'm not a government worker nor anyone in my family so why would I vote for a party that IS going to redistribute even more of my hard earned income to a group that already has fantastic benefits and (RICH) pensions that I will never see.

So whether its libs, cons, socreds, what have you, I don't care, as long as it isn't the NDP.

But I will say this. If it came down to ONLY having a choice between the dippers and the greens I'd give the nod to your team. The greenies would really mess it up......

happy

When there's two choices and you hate one of them you can't claim you're not biased. That'd be like me claiming I think all parties are the same but I hate the Cons.

You're a Conservative supporter, that's fine, I don't care. The Cons don't offer me anything and in fact I think they work against pretty much everything I support but if you want to support them go ahead. Just don't tell me that you're unbiased.

Theres a difference

If I actually "supported" a party then I'd be a member.
The thought of joining a political party repulses me.
I vote the least of all evils.
It's that simple.

happy

Most people who support parties aren't members. Only a tiny segment of the population belongs to political parties. You on the other hand are more of a supporter than probably 75% of the population as you actively defend your party and attack the party you hate. Most people jsut don't engage in that sort of thing.

As for your "least of all evils", that's what everyone does.

donations illegal

Read from the Ubessey how one director from Triumf states it is perfectly okay to "do business this way"... has he still got a job? Hope not.